Claude Opus 5 vs Muse Spark 1.2
Compare Claude Opus 5 and Muse Spark 1.2 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Open Prompt, Object Detection, and Classification.
Compare Claude Opus 5 vs Muse Spark 1.2 live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs Muse Spark 1.2 on Vision Evals
Muse Spark 1.2 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Identification, where Muse Spark 1.2 leads 90.6% to 84.4%.
Overall, Claude Opus 5 averages 77.0% (#8 of 25) against 80.4% (#5 of 25) for Muse Spark 1.2.
Muse Spark 1.2 is cheaper ($0.0071 vs $0.017 per sample), while Claude Opus 5 is faster (7.4s vs 7.8s per sample).
Claude Opus 5 vs Muse Spark 1.2 Comparison Table
Evals updated August 6, 2026Pricing updated August 7, 2026
| Property | Claude Opus 5 | Muse Spark 1.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Meta |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $5.00 | $1.25 |
| Output $/1M | $25.00 | $4.25 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Image Tagging | ||
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 77.0% | 80.4% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.017 | $0.0071 |
| Avg speed / sample | 7.38s | 7.78s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 54.0% $0.027 | 60.1% $0.0094 |
| Counting | 70.3% $0.0096 | 74.3% $0.0049 |
| Identification | 84.4% $0.0072 | 90.6% $0.0038 |
| OCR | 93.2% $0.020 | 93.8% $0.0079 |
| Data Extraction | 88.7% $0.0080 | 88.7% $0.0033 |
| Reasoning (low) | 71.5% $0.010 | 74.8% $0.0074 |
| Reasoning (high) | 74.2% $0.018 | 76.2% $0.012 |
Claude Opus 5 vs Muse Spark 1.2: Overview
Claude Opus 5 is a large language model with multimodal vision capabilities developed by Anthropic, released on July 24, 2026 as the fourth model in the Claude 5 family. It sits in the Opus tier of Anthropic's lineup, positioned below the Mythos-class Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models, and is framed by Anthropic as the go-to model for most knowledge work and automation tasks. The model approaches Fable 5's capabilities at roughly half the cost, priced at $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens. It becomes the default model on Claude Max and the strongest model available on Claude Pro. The model ships with a 1 million token context window and an adjustable "effort" parameter that allows users to trade reasoning depth for speed and token savings. Early enterprise customers reported that Opus 5 achieved comparable performance to Opus 4.8's maximum-reasoning mode while generating significantly fewer tokens on average, and demonstrated higher accuracy on financial modeling tasks with fewer tool calls and less time.
Claude Opus 5 supports multimodal inputs including images and text, and is designed for agentic workflows, coding, scientific research, and complex enterprise tasks. Anthropic reports the model scores 10.2 percentage points higher than Opus 4.8 on an internal chemistry benchmark, making it the most capable generally available model for scientific research in the Claude lineup. Cyber classifiers on Opus 5 are designed to intervene approximately 85 percent less often than those on Fable 5, with fallback to Opus 4.8 when a classifier triggers. The model does not retain user data for 30 days, unlike Fable 5. It is available across Anthropic's platforms including Claude Code and Claude Cowork, as well as cloud partners.
Muse Spark 1.2 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Meta Superintelligence Labs, released as a coding-focused update to Muse Spark 1.1. It accepts text, images, video, audio, and PDF documents and returns text, with a context window of roughly one million tokens that allows whole repositories, long documents, and extended agent trajectories to be held in a single request. The model thinks before answering, and the amount of reasoning effort it spends is configurable per request. Alongside its visual and document understanding, it supports structured output and parallel function calling, and it is designed to operate either as a planning agent that delegates work or as a subagent executing tasks in parallel.
Training for version 1.2 scaled up compute on coding tasks and widened the diversity of training environments, concentrating on long-horizon work such as whole-repository generation, large end-to-end projects, and automated research. Part of the training data was self-generated, with Muse Spark 1.1 producing coding environments and instruction-following templates and grading candidate solutions against them. The model was co-trained with the Muse Code terminal agent, incorporating rejection-sampled harness trajectories and that toolset. Meta reports 82.9 percent on Terminal-Bench 2.1, an improvement of 6.7 points over Muse Spark 1.1. Multimodal use cases documented for the family include visual-to-code generation and detailed image and video captioning.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Muse Spark 1.2 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 80.4% (#5 of 25) against 77.0% (#8 of 25) for Claude Opus 5. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals Identification benchmark, Muse Spark 1.2 leads with 90.6% against 84.4%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Muse Spark 1.2 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0071 per sample against $0.017. Claude Opus 5 is priced at $5.00 per 1M input tokens and $25.00 per 1M output; Muse Spark 1.2 is priced at $1.25 per 1M input tokens and $4.25 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Claude Opus 5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.4s per inference against 7.8s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.
Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.